The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NLL Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and outdated - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:MLL Labelled Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and outdated - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Grey's Anatomy ratings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, and content should not be buried in a template. Whpq (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, if needed, it can be added to the article directly in the television ratings section. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Katy_Perry_songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Katy_Perry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:The Dreams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unneeded. Only one related article and otherwise only redirects or nonexistent articles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I did find an article for another album but it doesn't further navigation as it also links to and from the other articles anyway. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough links to provide meaningful navigation. --woodensuperman 12:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, connects 3 articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Motion of no confidence votes in the United Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Possibly misleading, as the majority of links are redirects to sections of List of successful votes of no confidence in British governments. --Nevé–selbert 15:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All but three are redirects to the same article. The alternative would be to strip the navbox of everything but these three links, but I don't think that's really enough to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EXISTING and TG. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 November 23. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Taylor_Swift_songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Taylor_Swift (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NYCS logo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, if needed we can add it to ((rint)), if it's not there already. Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:YC companies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant to List of Y Combinator startups which contains the same list of companies. The template also strikes me a potentially promotional, as its only purpose is to cross-link all Y Combinator (company) articles to each other. The list article already exists and is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (discolsure: I created the navbox) If a broad consensus is reached to delete the navbox, feel free to delete it. However, I still think that the navbox should be kept. Daylen (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant per nom. Daylen's Keep has no argument. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no explicit cause for a different page; I understand if it was good faith here but there's also nothing substantial to argue on a second page. SwisterTwister talk 16:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP, which states, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, this template enables users to functionally navigate related articles from article-to-article without having to utilize the list article. Furthermore, the template does not have a promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, just because companies got some venture capital funding from the same source doesn't mean we need to have a navbox connecting the companies. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although WP:NOTDUP applies, it does not change the fact that this navbox has no advantage over the list/category apart from slightly easier accessibility, which is not important given that it covers largely unrelated companies that only share a source of funding. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 09:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very much useful for navigation between startups. We can address the promotional issue. Störm (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list of about 100 items without any classification/grouping is close to no added value, and a "See Also" link to the list article does the job even better. Behnam (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete per this discussion and the AfD outcome Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gwalior Metropolitan Region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As for Gwalior Metropolitan Region, it doesn't exist (other than every town has a notional commuter belt). Batternut (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename and trim down. Well, it's called an "urban agglomeration" and a "metropolitan region" in at least one source [1] so the title isn't completely off (though feel free to move to a better title, simply ((Gwalior)) would probably do). The template navigates between six existing articles, all of which appear to be either within the city, or closely associated with it. If there any concerns about the inclusion of specific individual entries, feel free to remove them. – Uanfala 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - renaming and rewriting into something else => fails the TNT tipping point test. Better to start again following an more suitable pattern eg Template:Mumbai topics, Template:Kolkata topics. (In fact, I've just created Template:Gwalior topics. Batternut (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)) The census2011.co.in page Uanfala mentioned above is purely about the urban agglomeration - its talk of metropolitan regions is just index spamming. Batternut (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, if you want a different template, then write it. there is no reason to keep this one since almost none of it would be kept in a rewrite. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - the Gwalior Metropolitan Region AfD has now been closed with result "redirect to Gwalior". Batternut (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).